Political correctness is an ancient practice. We’ve carefully crafted comments and garnished concepts to meet acceptance standards for as long as people have been trying to get along together. The political turmoil that resulted in the French Revolution, the American War of Independence, and emergent democracies in the western world made the idea of “ruler” politically incorrect as a descriptor for the primary positional leader of country, county, city, or for that matter church. Rulers rule, but in the context of the enlightenment it was politically incorrect to “rule” or be a “ruler.” Thus it was that a new word emerged in the 16th century that fit the need for identifying the person and task in a new context—“lead” and “leader” gave birth to the product of that function we call “leadership.” Leadership as a word did not exist in common language prior to that time.
The Industrial Revolution required leaders to assemble and coordinate groups of people to labor in mass production of goods. I many cases they simply adopted the methods of rulers to accomplish an end but companies/corporations could not acceptably refer to these men as rulers so we remember them as “leaders” of industry. Thus it was that leadership which emerged as a necessary word in a time when the dignity and freedom of the individual was on the rise, in practice it became little more than a synonym for ruling. Command and control procedures, truly methods consistent with ruling, are simply treated as a type of leadership.“...of the people, by the people, and for the people” is an enlightenment concept that reflects the collective or community approach to governance. Leadership initially emerged as a concept that identified primary positional authority as coming from the people rather than being imposed upon the people. It is a relational concept that reaches back to ancient social structures where the father, mother, or firstborn, part of the social fabric and one within the relational community, are ordained to lead and carry responsibility for coordinating, adjudicating, and building that community of which they are a part.
The purpose of this blog entry is to initiate a conversation about leadership as a relational process that does not elevate the leader above the led or assume that the leader(s) constitute leadership. Leadership is the product of collective contribution by the entire community toward achieving a common purpose. Leaders emerge from that community to serve the common purpose based upon the competencies they are able to bring to bear on the process, some for a short period of time, some for a lifetime. This concept of leadership has powerful implications for the church that is designed around the concept of a body system.
Part 2 of this article will be posted next week.
Editor's note: This 2 part series on relational leadership was written by Stan Patterson, Ph.D and originally posted to GEORGIA GROWN in 2008. Stan serves as Professor of Christian Ministry at Andrews University Theological Seminary.
1 comments:
First, one's love relationship with Jesus has a way of spilling over his relationship with others. It is therefore important to have strong love relationship with Jesus first and formost. After all, it was Jesus who reminded us to go back to our first Love (relationship that is)with Him.
Secondly, one can not lead his congregation effectively unless he establishes relationship with them. Visitation is a good way to achieve, visiting them where they are, getting to know them personally. Absolom (though bad was his behavior), was going the right way - before he could lead and stole the hearts of Israel, he visited them daily and listen to their stories. We would not approve of what he did to his father, but he set a good example of what a leader must do in order to lead, be at one with our congregaton, connecting with people, hear their cry and concerns. It is hard to give Bible study or lead someone to Christ with whom we have no relationship whatsoever. I am not saying it's impossible. When Jesus talks about feeding him when he's hungry or visiting him in jail etc, it was this very thing: A servant leader who practice relationship. A leader who neglects visitation is not a leader but a ruler - nobody wants a ruler over them, especially in this post modern days. Think about it!
Post a Comment